Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub

[bruno masse <rodin4@videotron.ca>]

ok but what about the delta sub that can go to 1200' feet and have litle
buoyancy?
----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Lawrence <adteleka@in-tch.com>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub


> There comes a point in sub design where the weight of the pressure hull
> exceeds the buoyant force acting on it. So instead of adding weight to get
> your sub to submerge, you have to displace more water with something
lighter
> than water. All the subs (I think) built by this
> group do not reach depths where this transition takes place. After this
> point, the sub requires some positive ballast dedicated to only providing
a
> buoyant
> force. Alvin is an example, having a picture of its buoyancy package shown
> in Busby (pg. 298). Trieste is the best example, having to carry a 29,000
> gallons of gasoline, just to keep it afloat. So these subs are basically
> anchors, connected to an ~incompressible balloon. You can use the Alec's
> program to
> find this point.
> Adam
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bruno masse" <rodin4@videotron.ca>
> To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 7:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
>
>
> > i think that if the hull weight more you need less additional weight!
> > and why the k-600 is going to be less stable than the k-350 if the
weight
> > is at the right place?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Dan H. <JMachine@adelphia.net>
> > To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 8:18 PM
> > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
> >
> >
> > > Another thing to keep in mind is, as you beef up the sub, your adding
> > weight
> > > to it.  You can only add so much steel and still have a sub.  Beyond
> that,
> > > you got an anchor!
> > >
> > > The K-350 needs about 500 pounds additional weight placed in the hull
to
> > > dive.  The way a K-350 is designed, keeping the batteries and weights
> low
> > on
> > > the sub, it's stable.  If you add steel to the hull over all, you have
> to
> > > lesson the weights in the bottom of the hull.  The K-600 does this at
> the
> > > expense of stability.  You can only go so far doing this though.
> > >
> > > On page 17 in the Busby book, Manned Submersibles, explains in greater
> > > detail .
> > >
> > > Dan H.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ian Roxborough" <irox@ix.netcom.com>
> > > To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:28 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:32:36 -0400
> > > > bruno masse <rodin4@videotron.ca> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > another question.
> > > > > it is about the kitredge sub
> > > > > my question is: the k-600 have a 3/8" hull thickness and 1/2 thick
> end
> > > cap
> > > > > and can go to 600' feets.
> > > > > a hull with 1/2 thickness and a end cap with 5/8 to 3/4 thickness
> can
> > go
> > > about
> > > > > 1000' feets! i my wrong?
> > > > > somebody can help me with this question please!
> > > > > thank you
> > > >
> > > > In your hull with 1/2 thickness that goes to 1000feet,
> > > > they are two thinks which you would have to take
> > > > into account when comparing dive depths.  Hull diameter
> > > > will play a big part in making these calculations.
> > > > Safety Margin is the other big factor when operational
> > > > depths are being placed on hulls.  Of course they are some
> > > > other biggies as well, like material, what are the hulls
> > > > made of?  framing? hull length?  hull length between
> > > > heavy framing? how round is the cylinder?
> > > >
> > > > Assuming that material, diameter, framing, etc. are the
> > > > same for the both hulls:
> > > > The K600 can go a lot deeper than 600feet, I would guess
> > > > that the theoretical crush depth of such a sub would be
> > > > in the range of 2 or 3x the operational depth.  Can the 1/2 inch
> > > > thick hull go to 3000feet?  Or is a 1000feet it's theoretical
> > > > limit/clush depth for this hull.
> > > >
> > > > I remember reading/hearing about a K250 that was tested
> > > > to distruction in a pressure tank.  If I remember correctly,
> > > > only the dome on the top failed, at around 3 times the
> > > > operational depth ~700feet (please, somebody correct me if
> > > > I'm wrong).
> > > >
> > > > The short version of this is:
> > > > The K-class subs are serious over engineered (and I think
> > > > this is very good thing).
> > > >
> > > > Ian.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>